It seems to me that our country's involvment in WWI wasn't really necessary at all. None of the European powers openly declared war on the US, and it wouldn't have mattered who won the war since there wasn't a moral cause for justice (like WWII). To put it simply, there were no "good" guys. I don't think the German army was capable of taking France and the war would most likley end in a stale mate. What do you guys think?

Actually, there was some moral cause. It was to "protect freedom and democracy from autocracy" or something.:hmm:

France, Britan and Russia ( for a short time) were democracies when the US declared war and the Central Powers were all totalitaranian. Also the US always had close ties with Britan and most of the people favored Britan. Also the Germans did unrestriceted submarine warfare so that annoyed the US when they sank ships with US citizens. Plus the US traded a lot more with Britan and France than it did Germany and finally there was the Zimmerman telegram which caused outrage in the US against Gemany. So those are the reasons why the US declared war.

Edit: Also the Wilson thought that a Central Power victory would be negative for the US.

Also even in 1918 a German victory was possable. The march 1918 offensive could have worked. France, Germany and England were all exhausted by 1918. The Americans were the straw that broke the camels back.

Yes with Russian surrender at Brent-Livstock Germany moved it's troops from the East and transferred them to the West for the final push. But with fresh American troops on the frnt it did'nt work.

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
It seems to me that our country's involvment in WWI wasn't really necessary at all. None of the European powers openly declared war on the US, and it wouldn't have mattered who won the war since there wasn't a moral cause for justice (like WWII). To put it simply, there were no "good" guys. I don't think the German army was capable of taking France and the war would most likley end in a stale mate. What do you guys think?
So, that would explain why Germany was sinking American shipping, and the Germans were within artillery range of Paris, with only a disorganized mob of mutiners and deserters between them and the Eifel Tower when the AUS and Marine Corps arrived?

You sure you're not laying the butter a bit thick there pomsa?

The mutinies in the french army were mostly in the spring of 1917, and quelled mostly when Petain took command. The American army didn't begin to arrive in sizeable numbers until much later in the year (200 000 men or so deployed at the end of 1917 - compared to several millions deployed by the other nations), so as far as "saving the day" goes...

I've always seen the american part of the war being more of a morale boost then a full military boost. After the failed offensives and the pull out of the Russians, knowing that fresh troops and a new ally was joining the war probably caused at least some amount of hope. The americans had already been trading with Britain and France as well as "favoring" them in the war. Even though the troops did come a bit late, their acheivements should still be honored as progressing the victory. As I see it though, the americans were not completly needed to fully defeat Germany, but as someone said before, may have been "the straw that broke the camels back." You never know for sure though, without the american war declaration, things could potentially have been very different.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga

The mutinies in the french army were mostly in the spring of 1917, and quelled mostly when Petain took command. The American army didn't begin to arrive in sizeable numbers until much later in the year (200 000 men or so deployed at the end of 1917 - compared to several millions deployed by the other nations), so as far as "saving the day" goes...


Remember, Oda, that one of the things Petain used to quell the
mutinies was the promise:

"We will wait for the tanks, and we will wait for the Americans".

BTW, I fully agree that we did not "save the day" on the battlefield.

But IMO American entry into the war nevertheless
"saved the day" for reasons besides the one stated above..

1. It gave a general uplift to morale in both Britain and France
because they knew that the Germans had no answer for
the fresh bodies we would be sending over.

2. It forced the Germans out of their trenches in the spring of 1918,
because the same spectre of a couple of million fresh troops
(however raw) being ready for action by late 1918 or early 1919
made them realize they had to win quickly or not at all.

When I were in High School, the history teachers told us that the US entered WWI because Britain and France had big debts with them, and in case of a german victory those debts would never be paid. I somewhat doubt this version, since the cost of a war would probably outweight the debts. My history teachers were all marxists, so everything they say must be taken with a grain of salt.

Serutan - I'll grant you that. The *mental* effect of the American presence was enormous, far outweighing any material effect they had on the battlefield, which was overall minor. American troops probably didn't win the war (too few, too late for that) - but the american declaration of war probably did decide the final result.

That said, this is not how pomsa presented things, which was a gross exxageration putting America as "saviors of the western world" once again.

One intreasting thing to note is that the Americans rather using their far superior Browning rifle decided to use the inferior Louis gun. The reason for this was the American government was afraid that it would fall into German hands. The British had a good rifle also but the British wanted the AEF to bolster their own ranks which the Americans refused so the Bristish did'nt give them the gun. Which left the Americans with the Louis gun from the French which had a tendncy to jam, did'nt work in rain or snow. It had an open cartradige so when it got mud or water in it it woul'nt work. When it got too cold it would jam so what some soliders did was urinate on it to keep it warm and prevent it from jamming. The Browning rifle was by far the best gun of the war and it was a follish mistake not to use it.

Also, I think the Americans in general and Wilson in particular had a king of "soft spot" for their Anglo-Saxon buddies across the pond;)

The Nazis were already defeated, they were stagnant in their Soviet advances and could not possibly outproduce the USSR. America, realizing this, saw that if the USSR took back its territory, the attacks would not stop there. Stalin would have kept pushing, and acquired most of Europe (who could have defended themselves from Russia after the Nazi blitzkriegs demolished so many troops?) and communism would have spread throughout all of Europe. FDR wanted to stop the spread of communism.

Originally posted by kmad
The Nazis were already defeated, they were stagnant in their Soviet advances and could not possibly outproduce the USSR. America, realizing this, saw that if the USSR took back its territory, the attacks would not stop there. Stalin would have kept pushing, and acquired most of Europe (who could have defended themselves from Russia after the Nazi blitzkriegs demolished so many troops?) and communism would have spread throughout all of Europe. FDR wanted to stop the spread of communism.
Wrong war?

Originally posted by pomsa
Wrong war?

I believe the USSR was a communist government back then, too?

Originally posted by kmad
The Nazis were already defeated, they were stagnant in their Soviet advances and could not possibly outproduce the USSR. America, realizing this, saw that if the USSR took back its territory, the attacks would not stop there. Stalin would have kept pushing, and acquired most of Europe (who could have defended themselves from Russia after the Nazi blitzkriegs demolished so many troops?) and communism would have spread throughout all of Europe. FDR wanted to stop the spread of communism.

Yea wrong war buddy

... and Germany definately could have taken Russia one v one, it would have just taken longer

No, I've got the right war here.. the spread of communism wasn't limited to the cold war.

Originally posted by luiz
When I were in High School, the history teachers told us that the US entered WWI because Britain and France had big debts with them, and in case of a german victory those debts would never be paid. I somewhat doubt this version, since the cost of a war would probably outweight the debts. My history teachers were all marxists, so everything they say must be taken with a grain of salt.

Yes; Britain and France had very big debts with the USA, and this was one (but not the only US reason). WW1 debt was later re-cheduled to be paid back over 40 years by 1960, but WW2 came along. Britain was still repaying US war debt in 2003.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Also, I think the Americans in general and Wilson in particular had a king of "soft spot" for their Anglo-Saxon buddies across the pond;)

I disagree. The USA had been quite happy to ally with Napoleon;
and positively enjoyed British set-backs against the Boers in South Africa.


President Wilson had tried to intervene by instigating proposals for peace conferences before the US entered WW1. However after the Germans had defeated the Russians, they became over optimistic and demanded a victor's peace. It was this arrogance that infuriated the Americans. The Zimmerman telegram was a fake. Although it made quite a stir, I don't believe that the US government ever believed in it. I also think that the USA was very anxious to avoid having one power dominate the Eurasian continent and its populations which would become a strategic threat to the USA.

IMHO Reasons were (most important) first:

(a) prevent anti-democratic German domination of Euro-Asia

(b) demonstrate USA power and enable projections of US
democratic values

(c) get loans repaid by Allies

(d) eliminate submarine piracy attcks on US trade

Originally posted by kmad
No, I've got the right war here.. the spread of communism wasn't limited to the cold war.
Yes, but the Nazis were limited to WWII.

kmad, you *do* have the wrong war. We're talking *FIRST* world war here, not Second world war. The USSR was barely beginning at the end of the war - it was still in the middle of a civil war, and the only action russian communists took in the war was to make a separate peace with Germany.

skdl;afjksdfjkl;asdfjkds

hahaha, do I ever feel stupid.

sorry guys!

@kmad - After looking at your avatar, I understand why you made that mistake. :lol:

U.S.A entered the war because of the Zimmerman letter sent to Mexico. The content was that IF Mexico entered in a war against USA, they would have the full cooperation of Germany, and in the case of a victory, Mexico would have gained: Texas, new-mexico and a couple more southern state. Also, german sub was attacking ANY ship, which was crippling over-sea US economy. During the war, a LOT of american was on the side of the central power. USA COULD had entered the war against the allies. It was due to the poor diplomacy of germany that USA got in the war.

To say Germany was undemocratic is not right. The Reichstag could have stopped all hostilities very fast and despite the written constitution the Kaiser always took a man as Chancellor who had the support of the Reichstag.
But in 1917 it was a decisive year for the allies. Onyl the US help could prevent the fall of Britain. By the end of the year German subs would have sunk so much ships that Britain had to ask for peace. You say this was unjustified but it was only a German reprisal because of the British policy of blockading and sinkíng German merchants- and their unrestricted warfare in the North sea.
No Germany wasn´t undemocratic. And Yes the US were the factor in this war. When in 1918 the operation Michael failed it was because of the US troops. If the US would have entered now, they would have come too late. But so they were able to stop Germany. Nevertheless the US made a bad decision after the war not to stop Versailles.

Adler

Originally posted by Adler17
Nevertheless the US made a bad decision after the war not to stop Versailles.

Adler

Wilson wanted terms that were less harsh towards Germany but France and Britain didn't allow it.

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
@kmad - After looking at your avatar, I understand why you made that mistake. :lol:

:mad:

I've been wanting to change my avatar since I got back from my year-ban but I can't find anything worthwhile.

and yes, US intervention saved at least hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost if the attrition was allowed to keep going.

Originally posted by Adler17
Onyl the US help could prevent the fall of Britain. By the end of the year German subs would have sunk so much ships that Britain had to ask for peace.

Oh, I don't know about that. I don't think the German army would've been capable of a land invasion...

I have to disagree I think that the British and French would of atleast made the war unwinnable for the Germans, if not defeated them

of course if the US would of supplied the Germans with what they needed like it did with the British then the war would of probably turned out quite differently

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
Wilson wanted terms that were less harsh towards Germany but France and Britain didn't allow it.

Ahh, the original multilateralist action. That filthy arrogant unilateralist Wilson spurned world opinion and luckily, the French, Italians, and British got their way and silenced him. And the result proved that the majority of nations is always right, and the lone maverick is always wrong.

If the Uboats sunk enough freighters the British supplies of food would have been shorten too much to contain the fights. And even if the UK stayed in war the Germans lauc´nched in spring 1918 the operation Michael with new troops from the east. In reality these troops were stopped only by the US troops which arrived just in time. Without them the Entente had no chance.
Daniel Khan concerning the majority of nations is ALWAYS right concerning the result- you mean that ironical do you? Otherwise you´re wrong. The Versailles treaty was the cause for Hitler and these states, especially France, responsible for this war.

Adler

Whatever the importance of Versailles, isn't it about time we quit solely blaming the French and British for Hitlers rise and actions and accepted that the Germans are the ones that had the greatest hand in those particular events? :rolleyes: Or if we find that a little hard, can we please accept they at least had an equal role for a change?

On the topic, yes it was necessary to produce the result we ended with, no it was not necessary for the allies to avoid defeat. Negotiated peace would have been the probable result of non-US entry. The point on the submarine/merchant issue being hypocrisy is irrelevant. Britain was not (to my knowledge) sinking US ships in the north sea, Germany was sinking US ships in the atlantic etc. Truth be told countries mostly run on national interest, and if you damage a nation enough they will respond. Justified or not, it was an action destined to backfire on Germany sooner or later.

But talking about if the allies would have lost is drifting away from the point. The direction of the first post was not solely what would have happened to the allies/course of the war, but what would have happened to the US. How would the US have been affected and what would that have meant for her development as a nation. His point is a valid one, the war to a greater extent was almost an irrelevance to the US point of view, no one country deserved victory more than another. He makes the relevant point that other than self defense interest, the US had no real need to join WWI, politically or morally, unlike WWII.

So was it necessary from the US point of view? Probably not absolutely, but I suspect that the bad press from the German submarine warfare and Zimmerman put Wilson in the position that it made it desirable to do so. As pointed out by Edward, WWI ending in the way described by Adler (ie Germany dominating Europe) was entirely a bad thing for America.

"Retreat, Hell." We just got here." Fighting spirit and determination against heavy odds is a sound tradition in the Marine Corps and nowhere is there a more graphic illustration than an incident which occurred in World War I. Legendary or true, it personifies the aggressive attitude of Marines.

The occasion was the third great German breakthrough of 1918, when the 4th Marine Brigade and its parent 2d Infantry Division were thrown in to help stem the tide in the Belleau wood sector. The 2d Battalion, 5th Marines, had just arrived at its position when an automobile skidded to a stop and a French officer dashed out and approached the commanding officer. He explained that a general retreat was in progress and that orders were for the Marines to withdraw. The Marine officer exclaimed in amazement, "Retreat Hell! We just got here.

And the Marines proceeded to prove their point. The battalion deployed and took up firing positions. As the Germans approached, they came under rifle fire which was accurate at ranges beyond their comprehension. Not in vain had the Marine Corps long stressed in its training the sound principles of marksmanship. The deadly fire took the heart out of the German troops and the attack was stopped.

"Come on, you s__ o_ b_____s, do you want to live forever?" Marine Corps legend has it that this saying originated during World War I in France. During the violent fighting in Belleau Wood, Sergeant Dan Daly's platoon, part of the 6th Marines, was pinned down by intense enemy fire. The gallant Daly, already possessor of two Congressional Medals of Honor (one for heroism during the China Relief Expedition in 1900 and the other received during the Haitian Campaign of 1915), raged up and down the line trying to get his troops moving. Finally, the story goes, he yelled "Come on, you s__ o_ b_____s, do you want to live forever?," as he leaped out of the trench, and led his men in the attack.

Why Marines were called "Devil Dogs." In the Belleau Wood fighting in 1918, the Germans received a thorough indoctrination in the fighting ability of Marines which they could have used to forewarn their axis partner, Japan, in 1941. Fighting through supposedly impenetrable woods and capturing supposedly untakeable terrain, the men of the 4th Marine Brigade struck terror in the hearts of the Germans. The persistent attacks delivered with unbelievable courage soon had the Germans referring to Marines as the "Teufelhunden" meaning "fierce fighting dogs of legendary origin" or as popularly translated "Devil Dogs."


I'd say yes, the germans fear of marines saved the french fries.

They were called the Devil Dogs, because they killed anything that moved, even dogs, like the Devil.

I didn't even know we used marines that extensively. I will admit that my current knowledge of WWI is limited. I always assumed that we helped the British and French win by using massive amounts of infantry and overwhelming enemy lines as opposed to skill or superior arms. The standing army of the United States prior to the outbreak of the war was rather small so most infantry were hastily trained. Also, I think the British (and French?) let US pilots fly their planes since, at the time, our air force lacked substantial numbers to be an effective fighting force. I have no idea if the US navy contributed to the war effort, besides transporting troops across the Atlantic.

IIRC quite a few US capital ships served with the British fleet for some time, not sure which ones though.

pomsa, that makes no sense.

The persistent attacks delivered with unbelievable courage soon had the Germans referring to Marines as the "Teufelhunden" meaning "fierce fighting dogs of legendary origin" or as popularly translated "Devil Dogs."

who would have the fiercest fighting dogs? the devil!


riesstiu, they arrived in 1918 i'm not sure how many marines fought in wwI, i can't imagine there were alot of marines then.

They only really raised morle in the end

France and the UK would have won even without the US entry. It was not American skill that caused the Germans to surrended, but the fear of endless reenforcement.

the fear of endless reinforcements of marines! :)

Very hard to prove your statement unless we invent a time machine.

Okay, a short remark on Versailles and Hitler. Sure there are also German reasons why Hitler got the power. But why the Germans felt unsecure? Why hit the crise of 1929 Germany so badly? What about the reaprations? We discussed that earlier in another thread. So read this. I only want to say without Versailles Hitler was the most unpropable way. Also I agree that even with Versailles Hitler could have been avoided. But this treaty was the main cause of him!
And that the French/ British troops were able to beat the Germans I think that´s not very propable. Even if the UK could have been supplied of foods the allied troops were exhausted. As I admit all troops in Europe were. But with the fresh troops from the east the Germans would have broken through the lines. The Entente forces were far too weak to break through the German lines again. And so over short or long in 1918, at least in 1919, Paris would have been captured.
If Germany dominated Europe? I don´t think so. The peace with Russia was so harsh because the Germans wanted to have a puffer. And the peoples which got rid about the Russian controle are even happy today that the Germans helped him to become independent. And not to forget: The Russian government were commies! So they should have been weakened. If another regime the power would have conquered, Germany would have helped them.

Adler

Versailles is a reason, but should not be used an excuse. The British is a sense faced a similar situation after WWII, we lost the empire, we were required to pay "reparations" (ie war debts) to the US, we faced financial troubles, we were humiliated on the world stage and so on. The whole world was hit by 1929, Austria was humiliated by versailles. It is no excuse to say that you were badly treated, supporting such a man is never excusable by citing situations.

Is it a partial reason behind German actions? Yes, but it shouldn't be rolled out everytime someone mentions the Nazis like some cover-all excuse that neatly blames someone else for putting Hitler in power. Others faced the same problems, with exceptions such as Russia, I do not recall it leading to someone such as Hitler.

As for the peace, Germany would either dominate by land control or dominate by stature and influence. Who knows what would happen to those newly independant "buffer" states if Germany had not been shattered in 1918? Russia tried annexing them (and to a degree did), who can say Germany would not have?

As for the Russian government being "commies" argument, well... at that stage the difference in brutality between the new Communists and the Czar is neglible.

I don´t mean Versailles as excuse but as explaining. And saying this peace was wonderful is not right. But enough to that theme. There were some in the governmental parties who called to annex them indeed but the very majority in Reichstag and army had denied this. They should be independent as a buffer, protected by Germany. But we´ll never know what have happened if.
Well the czar didn´t make nearly genocides as Stalin or other cruelities. He was cruel indeed but he wasn´t such a danger than the commies. German troops fought ahgainst them until 1921!

Adler

I don´t mean Versailles as excuse but as explaining.

:crazyeye: You don't come across that way often.

And saying this peace was wonderful is not right

Well that's interesting because I didn't, I was saying that I'm sick of it being trotted out as if it excuses supporting Hitler, be that intended or otherwise.

They should be independent as a buffer, protected by Germany. But we´ll never know what have happened if.

Exactly, we will never know to what extent "protection" was meant and how truly independant they would become, or if they would simply become another basis for the next war.

Well the czar didn´t make nearly genocides as Stalin or other cruelities. He was cruel indeed but he wasn´t such a danger than the commies. German troops fought ahgainst them until 1921!

Congratulations for fighting him, so did 1/2 of europe send troops there :rolleyes: However since not that many in 1917 outside of the communist party had the slightest clue who Stalin was this is utterly irrelevant. The Czar was no saint, the Communists who sided against him were no saints ever, I'm talking pre-stalin, before people had worked out the evils of those regimes, standing against them because they were "commies" and siding with the Czars doesn't seem very noble to me.

Very hard to prove your statement unless we invent a time machine

Verty hard to prove yours without a time machine too

back to the point,

No US involvment was not nesescarry(cant spell that word lol). the Germand were exhausted after another massive advance which again stretched supllies. they almost won. but in "almost winning" they took massive casualties in was it Kaiserschlacht or somit. Britain had refined its tank attacks, France had developed some intresting little tanks and both nations put them to good use. In little time they were pushed back and British aircraft outnumbered their opponents. Americans filled up the gaps and gave a moral boost but little more.

Did you know they refused to dig trenches?

The American involvement in World War I was "necessary", though we could argue what anyone means by necessary.

The Americans essentailly ended the war earlier than it most likely would have, though their military contributions on the ground were, aside from the battles along the Marne in June-July 1918, of minimal impact.

The German government's (i.e., Hindenburg & Ludendorf's) behavior in 1917 politically-speaking was just shy of moronic, though I believe arrogence played a major role. The Germans had just managed to remove the Russians from the war when they stumbled into involving the Americans. From the German perspective, they saw an economically powerful but militarily pathetic country that would probably be of little consequence to the war anyway. The U.S. Army in 1917 stood at something like only 200,000 men, most of them scattered across the country in small camps and forts, while the U.S. military's equipment was woefully inadequate and its tactics better suited to the American Civil War than modern warfare. As well, there was a significant German population in the U.S., and an Irish population that was strongly anti-British; add to that a very politically strong isolationist lobby and the Germans seemed to believe that the U.S. could never muster the means to effectively impact the war in France. However, they discounted some important factors that Berlin seems to have realized only after it had provoked the U.S. into the war:

1. While the U.S. Army was weak and backward, the U.S. Navy was not and it had already began developing effective anti-submarine measures with the Royal Navy.

2. While the U.S. Army was weak and backward, the U.S. conscription system was efficient and able to produce 2 million men within months and ship them to France without losing a single soldier to the German Kriegsmarine. The U.S. produced another 2 million men by war's end, though the war ended before most of this next two million could see much action. Simply said, Berlin discounted the sheer number of troops the U.S. could field, at a time when all the combatant armies in Europe had nearly been bled dry of new recruits.

3. Berlin was aware of the loans and materials the U.S. was providing to he British before 1917 and assumed that it wouldn't matter if Germany declared war because the Americans were already providing supplies to the Western allies, but Berlin was again wrong, in terms of scale. The American financing and trade with the Entente powers before April 1917 operated under considerable restraint from a nervous Congress; this military commerce between the U.S. and the Entente powers before 1917 was only a fraction of what the Americans would provide the Allies after they declared war. The American economic floodgates opened after April 1917, to Germany's great detriment.

4. Wir brauchen Kolonien! The Germans also seem to have been motivated somewhat by a need for revenge, as the Americans had tricked or beaten the Germans out of a few German colonial (mis)adventures in the decades leading up to the war (i.e., Venezuela, Philippines, Hawaii, etc.). I suspect Berlin decided that 1917 offered an opportunity - especially with the Russians out of the war - to humiliate the weak Americans and grab some fruitful colonies.

Berlin did eventually realize the problems it had brought upon itself by getting the U.S. into the war against it, and the entire German war plan for the Western Front in 1918 must be seen through this lense that the Germans realized they needed to end the war before significant numbers of American troops were trained properly by the Allies and sent to the Front. The Reichswehr would not be able to withstand the sheer numbers, regardless of their fighting qualities. (BTW, the Germans employed a stereotype of the American soldier for political purposes: In 1917-18 they told Germans that American entry into the war didn't matter much because Americans were terible soldiers who couldn't fight, but in the 1920s the opposite stereotype was used - that Americans were amazingly skillful and brave soldiers (the "Teufelhund" legend) - to explain how the Reichswehr lost in November 1918.) Operation Michael in March 1918 and the subsequent collapse were a direct result of a panicky Berlin's need to end the war as soon as possible, before the Americans could make their numbers felt on the Front.

The British and French were able to muster the dynamism and resources to counter this final German offensive, and to counter-attack effectively - bringing mobility back to a front that had been stagnant for 4 years. Were it not for this last desperate stab by the Germans in March 1918, the war almost assuredly would have dragged on into 1919, possibly even 1920. The Germans gambled and lost in Spring 1918.

From an American perspective, the Germans gave plenty of reasons for the Americans to declare a casus belli by the standards of the day. Unrestricted submarine warfare in 1915 contravened international law dealing with the right of neutrals to trade with belligerants (to which Prussia, and later Germany were party to). Then the Zimmerman Telegram, an amazingly naive and idiotic piece of diplomacy, finally forced Wilson - who was against war - to act. The British made sure the Telegram was made public to force Wilson's hand. The most amazing aspect of the telegram (and there are many) was that Wilson gave the Germans an opportunity to deny the telegram was an actual German government initiative, that they could have claimed that some lower-level bureaucrat had sent it without authorization - but no, when the Telegram was made public Berlin openly acknowledged that they had authorized and approved it.

This is amazing because it showed the Germans had little concept of what they were asking; they wanted Mexico to declare war against the U.S., but Mexico still hadn't fully recovered from its revolution of 1911 and the central government in Mexico City did not control yet large parts of the country. Rebels and bandits roamed freely around the country, bombing and terrorizing Mexican peasants, as civil war raged throughout the Mexican lands - all the while, the Mexican government stood helpless. Wilson, in a fit of self-righteousness, had Marines sieze Verz Cruz in 1914 for 6 months with no resistance from the Mexican Army, while an American Army division wandered the Mexican interior for months in 1917 unhindered, trying to chase down the Mexican rebel leader Poncho Villa. This was the country that Berlin thought could take on the U.S....